Fighting Two Fronts

[Ben Masada]

I beg your pardon but all the 12 tribes have had significant contributions to the sacred writings as well as significant roles to play in everything coming back together again.

Yes, but ten of them do not exist anymore. They have been forever rejected by God, while Judah was confirmed for the sake of David. (Psalm 78:65-67; I Kings 11:36)

Seems you mistyped as at that point they were to be barred from it. But, they were not to be barred from it forever. Does Judaism truly have no hope of redemption back into paradise? You call this offering being a light to the world? We offer you eternal death... Wow, gosh, how inspiring!!! NOT!

The above shows how conditional is your loyalty to God. If there is eternal paradise in the afterlife. No different from Paul's loyalty, which was based on the resurrection of the dead. (I Cor. 15:32) As he said, "If the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." Such a loyalty or faith is worthy menstrual rags. We don't need promises of eternal paradise to be loyal to God. We serve God no matter what. Just because it is the Jewish thing to do.

What you claim fulfilled it was a joke. There was no associated gathering of the people together again. If something is to fulfill a prophecy it has to fulfill all aspects of the prophecy. Also, what's THE scepter if it becomes divided? The scepter was never prophesied to be divided.

I have explained this to you but I think you love to argue just for the sake of the argument itself. Once again. In Genesis 49:10 we read that the scepter won't depart from Judah until Shiloh comes and to him shall the gathering of the people be. When the Ten Tribes split from Judah it was a division. It means that the scepter of Judah, or the hegemony that Judah exerted over all the 12 Tribes was divided. Judah lost ten of the Tribes which were gathered under Jeroboam according to the Prophet Ahijah from Shiloh. (I Kings 11:29) That's also how Isaiah saw the issue of Shiloh; as a separation when Ephraim that departed from Judah. (Isa. 7:17)

Judah as a tribe does NOT keep the scepter over the whole House of Israel. It goes entirely to Shiloh, the Birthright to whom it rightly belongs.

At least here we agree with each other. I know that Judah no longer keeps the scepter over the House of Israel because this House no longer exists. The scepter over the Ten Tribes went to Jeroboam. However, we still do not agree about the birthright, which Divinely used to belong to Judah, and humanly to Joseph. To Judah by the will of God; to Joseph by the will of man. To Judah according to Torah Law; to Joseph because Jacob loved Rachel the most. But things don't go that way but God's way. That's why Joseph no longer exists, and Judah still does.

The scapegoat is who obtains victory over the serpent and LIVES. And, yes, you are correct, it is performed by the Birthright. It wasn't until after your ordinances were corrupted by the Edomite incursions into your faith that they decided they should start running that goat backwards over a cliff. I can see why your doctrine is polluted. Your ordinances have been polluted for many centuries. You have some serious homework and rethinking to do.

This is Mormon Mythology.

I don't need anything Paul ever said to promote what I promote.

Every time you promote Jesus as the Messiah, you are promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. And according to some Scholars this is Antisemitism.

There isn't an orthodox religion on the face of this earth that would want me to be a part of them. They've all been hijacked by men.

Cut off the cop-out man, I have read enough about Mormonism to identify one by the way he writes.

You think you can put a gague on God's mouth to only work with the Jews?

That's not me. Do you believe the Prophets? It seems to me you don't. Ezekiel says that by means of Israel (The Jewish People) God reveals His glory in he sight of the nations. (Ezek. 20:41) Then, Isaiah says that Israel (The Jewish People) has been set asside as light unto the nations. (Isa. 42:6) Then, the Psalmist says that God gave His Word to Israel (the Jewish People) only and to no other people on earth. (Psalm 147:19,20) Then, Jesus said to the Jewish People, "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) Not only with the Jews, but through the Jews, it seems that someone has indeed "put a gague on God's mouth." And I have a hint that the Prophets did it.

You can't do this without at the same time disrespecting your uncle Ishmael and your brothers, including your birthright brother, to be so closed-minded and dogmatic.

I am neither close minded nor dogmatic. I go according to the Scriptures.

 

[kylixguru]

But if I don't consider it God, then I still don't believe in God.

That supports what I am saying.
It is a choice of veneration, as well as existence, that separates things.

As an example: some cultures consider the sun to be a god. I believe that the sun exists, but I don't believe that it's a god. Therefore, even though I believe in what some people consider a god, I'm still an atheist.

Sure, I have no claims on what the term atheist means. I just think whatever basis you put forward should be consistent given all circumstances.

Veneration is still a separate question.

Yes, that's why I'm saying things are not as simple and cut and dry as you are making it sound.

I suppose you need to believe that a thing exists before you can venerate it, but if you believe in a god that you don't venerate, you're still a theist.

You believe the sun exists so you are a theist according to sun worshippers, by your definition.

If you believe the sun exists, which others take for their God, but you choose not to venerate it as your God, then you are agnostic about it, not atheistic. Actually, there probably is a better word for it than agnostic, but one doesn't come to mind.

Okay, but someone who's vainly a theist is still a theist, and someone who's vainly an atheist is still an atheist. Again, it all comes down to the simple question of whether you believe in any gods. That's it. All the stuff about how likely you consider gods to be or how well-founded your beliefs are is secondary. When telling the difference between a theist and an atheist, only that one question matters.

I'm ok with that as I do not identify myself in anyone's stereotypes anyway. But, my point is, veneration as well as existence must be a factor. If the God of another, as described by those who venerate it, does indeed exist, then your basis for being an atheist is a choice to not venerate it as such rather than deny its existence. Can we agree there?

 

[Meow Mix]

Someone who doesn't believe in the characteristics in an object that render it theistic by others doesn't mean someone isn't an atheist.

If someone decided to worship my socks as God and I didn't ascribe attributes to my socks of a theistic nature I'm still 100% atheist. Just throwing that out there.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It is a choice of veneration, as well as existence, that separates things.

When it comes to actual religion, sure. When it comes to merely dividing people into the categories of theist or atheist, it doesn't.

Sure, I have no claims on what the term atheist means. I just think whatever basis you put forward should be consistent given all circumstances.

It is.

Yes, that's why I'm saying things are not as simple and cut and dry as you are making it sound.

What do you mean by "yes"? I'm saying that veneration is irrelevant to the question. If you agree with me, then it is that simple.

You believe the sun exists so you are a theist according to sun worshippers, by your definition.

No, because it's my own determination of the term "god" that informs my beliefs about the existence of gods.

If you believe the sun exists, which others take for their God, but you choose not to venerate it as your God, then you are agnostic about it, not atheistic. Actually, there probably is a better word for it than agnostic, but one doesn't come to mind.

I don't think that works at all. By that measure, since virtually every person on the planet believes that both the sun and Eric Clapton exist, everyone's a polytheist. Do you think this is reasonable?

I'm ok with that as I do not identify myself in anyone's stereotypes anyway. But, my point is, veneration as well as existence must be a factor. If the God of another, as described by those who venerate it, does indeed exist, then your basis for being an atheist is a choice to not venerate it as such rather than deny its existence. Can we agree there?

No, not really.

Veneration is a matter of worship, not a matter of acknowledgement of a thing as a god. Monolatrists and henotheists acknowledge many gods but venerate only one... and they're still polytheists. Maltheists acknowledge the existence of God but make a point of not venerating him. People can venerate things that are not gods.

Again: it's all about belief in god(s). Part of this is our determination of what is an is not a god.

You're trying to make it a lot more complicated than it really is. All it comes down to is the question "do you believe in any gods?" If your honest answer is "yes", then you're a theist. If your honest answer is "no", then you're an atheist. It really is as simple as that.

 

[Ben Masada]

Someone who doesn't believe in the characteristics in an object that render it theistic by others doesn't mean someone isn't an atheist.

If someone decided to worship my socks as God and I didn't ascribe attributes to my socks of a theistic nature I'm still 100% atheist. Just throwing that out there.

Of all the guys back in the crowd when you threw your socks out there, I was the one who got them. Now what?

 

[kylixguru]

Yes, but ten of them do not exist anymore. They have been forever rejected by God, while Judah was confirmed for the sake of David. (Psalm 78:65-67; I Kings 11:36)

Yes, the northern kingdom went into exile before the southern kingdom did. Thus, since the Lord knew this would happen, the scepter was transferred to Judah so that they could facilitate the birth of the King of all Israel. What was established forever was for the sake of David, not Judah as a whole. All kings upon the throne of Israel shall indeed be descended from Jesse through David.

This is the 'stem' or the stump of Jesse referred to in Isaiah 11. If you carefully examine the symbology and look at the implications you can see how things are going to play out. The King who comes by way of Judah is 'stumped'. He is the first goat of the Yom Kippur who is slain.

The 'rod', which is a sprout that grows up from the 'stump', is a new growth by way of Ephraim's House with Jesse's blood mixed in. However, the 'rod' gets broken and Ephraim is blotted out as a tribe per Deuteronomy 29:18-20 and Rev 7. The ram burned of Yom Kippur comes from Ephraim.

The 'branch' comes out of Joseph and is the second goat of Yom Kippur and obtains the victory over the adversary. He escapes alive. His is not the scapegoat, he is the escapegoat. He grows up from the roots out of a dry ground because at his time all is in darkness and chaos as a result of the stump and the rod being burned to the ground. He must survive against all odds, including defeat the adversary when the calamities of the end of the age come. He stands as the survivor of a ruined world to start over again in the wilderness and is who gathers the seedstock for the new cycle of creation to begin anew. He is the beginning. Aleph-Bet. Ox's House. Joseph. The Father. The Shepherd and Stone of Israel. The birthright Shiloh. Adam redeemed and restored to His throne by His redeemer Son of Man.


Anyway, you seem to forget other portions of scripture that put the southern kingdom in the same fix as the northern kingdom was in. Judah also was conquered and went into exile. Ezekiel made it clear all had become fallen and he laid out the terms of how long those periods of exile would be. Judah's exile was 280 years and Israel's exile was 2,730 years. Why is it do you believe Judah gets to be regathered as a people again after their judgment period expired and the northern kingdom does not?

Why do you also ignore that Judah was deposed and scattered again? Don't you realize you are still a spiritually dead people? You have no temple where you keep your obligations to the God you claim to worship. Your ordinances are thoroughally corrupted. Your scholars are ever learning but despite all these years the only thing they offer are more questions. If you as a people are supposed to be the light and life of the world you claim to be, it's high time you start providing some answers! The fact that you don't, because you can't, should at least put you in a more open-minded posture, shouldn't it?

Israel was given to be for signs and wonders to manifest in this people the glory of God. The core essential lesson I see being taught is exactly how resurrection from the dead works. He is showing us how His law applies to us as individuals by giving us a showcase of what He is doing with His people. They sin and they are put to death and their elements decompose but they are gathered again and they are restored to life. He did this with two separate portions. Both portions shall be resurrected. Judah already had been, but they sinned again. Israel yet awaits theirs because it was to be for such a long duration. You deny their resurrection the same as you deny your own future resurrection. You are totally missing the whole point of the Torah. But, since you are asleep on the couch, that is to be expected.

The above shows how conditional is your loyalty to God.

You could make this one item that exhibits evidence. You need a lot more than that to build a case.

If there is eternal paradise in the afterlife.

Of course there is. That's the whole point of all of this.

No different from Paul's loyalty, which was based on the resurrection of the dead. (I Cor. 15:32) As he said, "If the dead won't resurrect, let us eat and drink for tomorrow we die." Such a loyalty or faith is worthy menstrual rags.

From my point of view he sums up the disposition of people who have no belief in the resurrection quite well, including many Jewish people.

We don't need promises of eternal paradise to be loyal to God. We serve God no matter what. Just because it is the Jewish thing to do.

Those who do this sincerely are most definitely worthy of applause.

I have explained this to you but I think you love to argue just for the sake of the argument itself.

I acknowledge any valid points you make, such as the one above.

Am I any less of a person because I believe in God in hopes to live again under more glorious and peaceful circumstances and to do all I can to invite others to partake as well? If I am given to be the light of the world, how does a message of death accomplish that?

(To be continued...)

 

[kylixguru]

(...continued.)

Once again. In Genesis 49:10 we read that the scepter won't depart from Judah until Shiloh comes and to him shall the gathering of the people be. When the Ten Tribes split from Judah it was a division. It means that the scepter of Judah, or the hegemony that Judah exerted over all the 12 Tribes was divided. Judah lost ten of the Tribes which were gathered under Jeroboam according to the Prophet Ahijah from Shiloh. (I Kings 11:29) That's also how Isaiah saw the issue of Shiloh; as a separation when Ephraim that departed from Judah. (Isa. 7:17)

I apologize but I really need to raise my voice here. You are not waking up.

AND TO HIM SHALL THE GATHERING OF THE PEOPLE BE

Jeroboam was not Shiloh.
What you suggest does NOT fulfill that passage.
What you speak of is division, not gathering.
The division had to occur then so that the gathering would come later.
Shiloh would not come until it was time for the divisions to be reunited.
That time will not be established in power until after Israel's 2,730 year judgment has expired. No other time for this has been eligible up to this point.

At least here we agree with each other. I know that Judah no longer keeps the scepter over the House of Israel because this House no longer exists. The scepter over the Ten Tribes went to Jeroboam. However, we still do not agree about the birthright, which Divinely used to belong to Judah, and humanly to Joseph. To Judah by the will of God; to Joseph by the will of man. To Judah according to Torah Law; to Joseph because Jacob loved Rachel the most. But things don't go that way but God's way. That's why Joseph no longer exists, and Judah still does.

Your interpretation is highly flawed and self-serving.

This is Mormon Mythology.

Very few Mormons pay that much attention to this. I don't know a single one of them who see it the way I do.

Every time you promote Jesus as the Messiah, you are promoting the Pauline policy of Replacement Theology. And according to some Scholars this is Antisemitism.

Had to drop the a-bomb on me huh?
As I said, I can support all that see without relying upon Paul.
It just so happens Paul understood the laws far better than most Jews.

Cut off the cop-out man, I have read enough about Mormonism to identify one by the way he writes.

Of course I draw heavily from Mormonism. Who else do you know of that calls themselves Ephraim? Do you think they would appreciate me telling them they are about to get blotted out as a tribe for backsliding and walking contrary to God? I have one loyalty and that is to God. I rigorously strip myself of anything that I detect comes from external influences and bias of men. Have you ever done a total meltdown and reboot of your entire religious point of view in like manner? If you haven't then you don't know the point of the washings and anointings priests would do in the temple. I think its about time you considered a good scrubbing too.

That's not me. Do you believe the Prophets? It seems to me you don't. Ezekiel says that by means of Israel (The Jewish People) God reveals His glory in he sight of the nations. (Ezek. 20:41) Then, Isaiah says that Israel (The Jewish People) has been set asside as light unto the nations. (Isa. 42:6) Then, the Psalmist says that God gave His Word to Israel (the Jewish People) only and to no other people on earth. (Psalm 147:19,20) Then, Jesus said to the Jewish People, "You are the light of the world." (Mat. 5:14) Not only with the Jews, but through the Jews, it seems that someone has indeed "put a gague on God's mouth." And I have a hint that the Prophets did it.

Your manner of interpretation implies God won't speak His Word to anyone but Jews. Only in your dreams Ben.

I am neither close minded nor dogmatic. I go according to the Scriptures.

No, you don't. You overlook things like "gathering" and instead think "dividing" is an applicable substitute. You stumble on things like this because your ego is attached to the singular special place you think God has for the Jewish people to the exclusion of all others. I agree the Jewish people are indeed a special people set aside for a special purpose. You demonstrating how asleep you currently are is helping to manifest that. Fortunately, whether you do or do not remains to be seen, but those who are true sons of Judah who truly love the Lord, they are going to awake from their slumber and get up off their couches and do much good to establish the real Zion, not the Edomite one many of your people are currently being hoodwinked into supporting.

 

[kylixguru]

Someone who doesn't believe in the characteristics in an object that render it theistic by others doesn't mean someone isn't an atheist.

If someone decided to worship my socks as God and I didn't ascribe attributes to my socks of a theistic nature I'm still 100% atheist. Just throwing that out there.

Yes, I'll definitely buy that up to a point. However, those who venerate the sun do so because of characteristics and attributes you likely accept. It is our main source of heat and light. If it wasn't for the sun, we would all cease to enjoy life as we know it. Thus, it is the source of our life too.

How do you separate acknowledgment from veneration in such a case?

 

[kylixguru]

You're trying to make it a lot more complicated than it really is. All it comes down to is the question "do you believe in any gods?" If your honest answer is "yes", then you're a theist. If your honest answer is "no", then you're an atheist. It really is as simple as that.

I'm telling you the simple way that I can understand it.

Atheists claim it is based on existence but I say the distinction is based on choice.

Thus, my point stands and you have demonstrated that in your own words.

So, I think we do violence to the term 'atheist' when we make it an argument of whether what someone believes God to be exists or not. But, that's just the view of an outsider. Take it or leave it.

 

[Meow Mix]

Of all the guys back in the crowd when you threw your socks out there, I was the one who got them. Now what?

Wash them on a cold cycle since they're probably my cool rainbow toes socks, and don't forget to put a bounce sheet in the dryer. I expect them back by Monday

 

[Meow Mix]

Yes, I'll definitely buy that up to a point. However, those who venerate the sun do so because of characteristics and attributes you likely accept. It is our main source of heat and light. If it wasn't for the sun, we would all cease to enjoy life as we know it. Thus, it is the source of our life too.

How do you separate acknowledgment from veneration in such a case?

If it were only such attributes that I agree exist in the sun then it wouldn't fulfill the definition of a "god" and I would still be an atheist. Veneration doesn't cause something to be a "god," and if it did then I still wouldn't possess the attribute of venerating it and so would still be an atheist. However that probably isn't the case since then we could have the absurd scenario of someone believing the Abrahamic deity exists but not venerating it and calling themselves an atheist. So, I doubt veneration has anything to do with it; or at least doesn't alone make the difference.

 

[Ben Masada]

Wash them on a cold cycle since they're probably my cool rainbow toes socks, and don't forget to put a bounce sheet in the dryer. I expect them back by Monday

Do you really need them back? Just a weekend goes back so fast. In the meantime, God bless you from Yerushalaim.
Ben

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm telling you the simple way that I can understand it.

Atheists claim it is based on existence but I say the distinction is based on choice.

Thus, my point stands and you have demonstrated that in your own words.

I'm not sure how you reach that conclusion.

It's no more a "choice" for me not to recognize the sun as a god then it is for me not to recognize it as President of the United States. My failure to do so doesn't have anything to do with any conscious choice on my part; both cases are simply a matter of comparing the characteristics of the sun to the criteria I have for either thing.

So, I think we do violence to the term 'atheist' when we make it an argument of whether what someone believes God to be exists or not. But, that's just the view of an outsider. Take it or leave it.

I think I'll leave it. I think it's nonsensical to say we "do violence" to that a term entirely defined by belief when we talk about it in terms of belief.

 

[kylixguru]

If it were only such attributes that I agree exist in the sun then it wouldn't fulfill the definition of a "god" and I would still be an atheist.

Ok, here's where the hardship comes in. Atheism can only stand when there is first a clear and unified definition of a "god". You can only be atheistic when you have first clearly defined a theist. And, I say what defines this is a matter of a person's choice to venerate something as such, not whether that something actually exists, with or without such attributes, or not.

Veneration doesn't cause something to be a "god," and if it did then I still wouldn't possess the attribute of venerating it and so would still be an atheist.

I have no qualms if you wish to consider yourself an atheist. I merely have qualms with you pretending to yourself that it is based on anything other than your personal choice to have it that way.

However that probably isn't the case since then we could have the absurd scenario of someone believing the Abrahamic deity exists but not venerating it and calling themselves an atheist. So, I doubt veneration has anything to do with it; or at least doesn't alone make the difference.

Sure, that's splitting hairs. The only simple clean cut definition I see that can distinguish an atheist is exactly as 9/10 penguin said. It's the person's choice.

Can you agree on that?

 

[kylixguru]

I think I'll leave it. I think it's nonsensical to say we "do violence" to that a term entirely defined by belief when we talk about it in terms of belief.

Ok, you are confused. You said you would leave it and then completely agreed with me. That's my point. It is totally a matter of choice or belief.

Many atheists seem to pride themselves in holding their position as if it is based on some empirically provable basis. The honest ones will simply tell you its their choice.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Ok, here's where the hardship comes in. Atheism can only stand when there is first a clear and unified definition of a "god". You can only be atheistic when you have first clearly defined a theist.

Funny - I didn't peg you as an ignostic.

And, I say what defines this is a matter of a person's choice to venerate something as such, not whether that something actually exists, with or without such attributes, or not.

And I'm saying that this would define a maltheist (i.e. someone who acknowledges the existence of God but does not venerate God) as an atheist, and that this makes no sense at all.

Sure, that's splitting hairs. The only simple clean cut definition I see that can distinguish an atheist is exactly as 9/10 penguin said. It's the person's choice.

It's only a matter of personal choice if belief is a matter of choice; it isn't.

Ok, you are confused. You said you would leave it and then completely agreed with me. That's my point. It is totally a matter of choice or belief.

If you think the terms "choice" and "belief" are interchangeable, then I think you're the one who's confused.

Many atheists seem to pride themselves in holding their position as if it is based on some empirically provable basis. The honest ones will simply tell you its their choice.

It is?

So... you could stop believing in God simply by choosing to do so?

 

[kylixguru]

Funny - I didn't peg you as an ignostic.

That probably is the best category for me between atheist and theist. I feel to avoid the 'theist' label because most of what people hold God to be I find meaningless.

And I'm saying that this would define a maltheist (i.e. someone who acknowledges the existence of God but does not venerate God) as an atheist, and that this makes no sense at all.

I agree, but it still does not afford an atheist the position of empirically saying God doesn't exist. They merely choose to believe God doesn't exist, period, just as you said.

It's only a matter of personal choice if belief is a matter of choice; it isn't.

Well, you have not shown a clear basis that belief is void of the component of 'choice'. Are we getting into the realm of brainwashed people whose beliefs are not a result of choice?

If you think the terms "choice" and "belief" are interchangeable, then I think you're the one who's confused.

Yes, I could be contracting things too narrow on my end. Feel free to draw the distinctions I am missing.

It is?

Yes, it is, from my point of view.

So... you could stop believing in God simply by choosing to do so?

Of course. Why couldn't I?

 

[LuisDantas]

An atheist could choose to pretend to believe in God, I suppose. But not to believe.

 

[astarath]

I would put forth that is the case for the exaggerated stats on Christians. Many atheists saying they believe as an act.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I agree, but it still does not afford an atheist the position of empirically saying God doesn't exist. They merely choose to believe God doesn't exist, period, just as you said.

Please stop putting words in my mouth. I never once said that people "choose to believe" anything.

Well, you have not shown a clear basis that belief is void of the component of 'choice'.

Is that my job?

Are we getting into the realm of brainwashed people whose beliefs are not a result of choice?

No, we're "getting into the realm of" recognizing that people's beliefs are a result of things like experience and perceptions, which are largely shaped by things other than our personal choices.

Yes, I could be contracting things too narrow on my end. Feel free to draw the distinctions I am missing.

Between "choice" and "belief"? They're so different that I wouldn't know where to start.

Yes, it is, from my point of view.

I think the view you've presented so far is a false dichotomy: there are options for belief other than "empirically proven" and "choice". "Sincere but mistaken", for instance.

Of course. Why couldn't I?

Because the normal human brain doesn't work that way. If a belief is informed by what a person has learned, then "choosing" to believe something else would be a matter of "un-learning" what he's learned. Generally, this doesn't happen.